Dec. 5, 2008 | Barack Obama can't be president: He wasn't really born in Hawaii, and the certification of live birth his campaign released is a forgery. He was born in Kenya. Or maybe Indonesia. Or wait, maybe he was born in Hawaii -- but that doesn't matter, since he was also a British citizen at birth because of his father, and you can't be a "natural-born citizen" in that case. (But then, maybe his "father" wasn't really his father; maybe his real dad was an obscure Communist poet. Or Malcolm X.)

You might think these rumors would have died off after Obama produced proof in June that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii to an American citizen, his mother Ann, or after Hawaiian state officials confirmed in October that he was born there. You might think the rumors would have died off after was elected by a comfortable margin. Instead, they've intensified. There have been paid advertisements in the Chicago Tribune questioning the president-elect's birth certificate and eligibility, and one group is raising money to run a similar ad on television. The right-wing Web site WorldNetDaily has been reporting on the issue almost non-stop. Numerous plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in various states. And Friday, the Supreme Court's nine justices will decide whether they want to hear one of those suits, which also contends that John McCain, born in the former Panama Canal Zone, does not meet the Constitution's requirements to hold the presidency.

The people hoping this is a sign the court will agree with them and stop Obama from becoming president are almost certain to be let down. The fact that the case has gone to conference doesn't mean anything about its merits -- the court will also be

Actually there is even more being hidden. He will not release anything documenting his past. College records, anything he accomplished as a community agitator or medical records; they are all unavailable.

The leftnuts are scared by this. Smell the fear, and observe their typical liberal, defense tactic of smearing the opposition. What puzzles me is why so many conservatives are so willing to jump onto the leftnut bandwagon to belittle those who don’t believe Obama and his sycophants. Let this play out. If Obama can figure out a way to come out clean, so be it. If not, let the fun go on. Remember, Obama could settle this in short order. He is the reason it is happening.

Please note that if, by some very remote chance, Obama were found ineligible to serve as President, the conspirary theorists on your side of the aisle would never accept that ruling (by, say, the Supreme Court), nor would they ever let it die.

Your point is what, exactly?

That is all.

53
posted on 12/05/2008 10:56:16 AM PST
by fightinJAG
(TWO BIG BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE AT THE END OF 2008. Happy New Year, love, President Obama)

Neither will curiosity for the secret Coca Cola formula die. But whereas anyone can understand why the Corp. of Atlanta might want to keep it a secret, nobody sane can morally justify a president holding back such an easy and innocent “1+1=2” corroborating piece of paper to the point of hiring expensive law firms, and even worse for a “leader” facing the mistrust of a large swathe of the population.

No way, nowhere, no how is it justifiable.

That is why I say, okay, they let you in on a technicality? Fine. Take your oath, but please no speeches about transparency, honor, courage... please nothing beyond the strict confines of the letter of the law. To fill in the time slot, you Mr. Obama can read the condominium rules for the State of Kansas, or the fishing rules for Lake Michigan, but please, nothing about faith, trust, sacrifice, standing united or any of those “extra-judicial” and “leadership” considerations you will find in all the inaugural speeches of past presidents, be they Democrat or Republican. Make your “charade oath”, just go through the motions, but you are no leader of men, you are a client of lawyers to hide 1+1=2.

I agree with you.
My parents, at the time of my birth, were BOTH British subjects. My mother worked for the British Army during
WW2. While they were here on Green Cards, their allegiance could still be said to lie with the UK.
Hence, while I was a “Citizen”, I was not a “Natural Born Citizen”.
I learned this over 30 years ago from someone I would regard as very knowlegeable on the subject.

I also think the “born in Kenya” thing is extremely unlikely, in spite of Kenyan tales. And even so, its a slam-dunk that courts would say that “natural born” NOW means born to a US citizen anywhere. Certainly the Supreme Court wouldn’t flinch from adopting that definition. The identity and citizenship of his mother is not in dispute, and he has acted as and been treated as a citizen for 40+ years, so such issues would be seen by nearly everyone (and most courts) as pettifogging.

There is something else hidden there, in the birth certificate and elsewhere, and this controversy was originally an attempt to flush it out.

This is not about obstruction, fraud or anything else. This is about Human Resources! This is about proving your right to legally work for the American people in this capacity. If you apply to work for someone in America, they will ask you for your SS Card and a government issued picture ID. If you apply to a “higher” opportunity like doctor or lawyer, they will also ask for proof of your degree and certification to legally practice whatever it is you are wanting to practice. Therefore this is a HR issue.

The problem is, there is no “HR” department for the constitution. The constitution does require the House of Representatives to certify and therefore, I would guess, verify the candidates, but right now I do not think the Democrat controlled House is going to do their job - do you?

In America, the office of President requires that you be a natural born citizen. So far, Senator Obama has refused to prove this and as such should be dismissed from the pool of people who can be hired - just as if I applied for, was given an offer letter from, and then expected the Memorial Herman Hospital to hire me as the head surgeon (BTW, I have about 36 credit hours of college - that’s it)!!!

“I dont think the law would be that inflexible if it came down to it, no matter what argument can be made. The public and the courts would find them unreasonable.

You can run for president without worries !”

I would disagree with that. The founders were worried to the point of paranoia (sp?) about someone with any type of allegence or ties to a foriegn country. That’s why they put the “natural born citizen” requirement in. Natural born has never just meant “born on US soil”, and it’s easy to document that it never has.

You can tell from reading this article, other articles, and posts that most people are totally confused about this (including many legal scholars.) Anyone that quotes the 14th amendment immediatly shows they don’t understand the subject. The 14th amendment ONLY deals with citizenship, not the more specific “natural born citizen”.

The founders were afraid of direct vote by citizens, so the created the electorial college. Most people today think the electorial college is no longer needed, but I don’t see the supreme court getting rid of it anytime soon.

The public (today) might find the parental requirement unreasonable, but the people that wrote the Constitution didn’t. Like the electorial college, they had a legitimate concern at the time so they added it to the Constitution to address that concern.

I think the “camel nose under the tent” that gets this case heard is the fact that several states had the socialist candidate on the ballot (a guy born in Nigeria and not natural born by anyone’s definiton.) Once the case is in court, anything can happen. If they are going to rule on the socialist candidate’s status, then they will have to define what natural born means Constitutionally. I almost gurantee it won’t just be born on US soil.

66
posted on 12/05/2008 12:00:13 PM PST
by Brookhaven
(The Fair Tax is THE economic litmus test for conservatives)

You are right! Obama is the cause of all the unanswered questions. But the Media has actually kept him from having to answer them!

The Media will continue to do the “voters have decided, nothing here, cases will go nowhere” talking points as long as they can. They knew all about both Obama and McCain not meeting the Constitutional requirements. Just my opinion.

I wasn't a McCain fan in the beginning. I was for Hunter, Thompson, Romney in that order. However, once McCain won the nomination I campaigned for him and supported him with donations. Especially when he selected Sarah as his VP! My vote was really going for Sarah, I have to admit.

Now that this Constitutional crisis is looming, I have come to that conclusion that the Media, DNC, RNC all knew that Obama and McCain did not constitutionally qualify as “natural born” citizens, even though they both are citizens. I respect McCain so much for his service to our country, and consider him an American hero. However, the Constitution must be followed and upheld. That is all I care about right now. We can live through whatever comes, but if our Constitution is considered a living breathing document that can provide a pass for Presidential candidates, our Republic will not get through that!

Why then was he dormed with foreign nationals in college. The practice then and now is to place students with cultural peers to ease their ability to communicate and socialize.

The court cannot make a feel good interpretation of born to a US citizen anywhere. The Constitution is breif and explicit in the requirements.

Acting like a citizen for 40 years does qualify one as a citizen. If you are here illegally then you have comitted multiple felonious frauds in those 40 years. And, I don’t care if you are from Ireland, England or any other blue eyed country and here illegally.

He has at least three BC’s

1. His original BC before adoption, that was sealed upon his adoption.

The Socialist candidates case didn’t come up because he didn’t win. Based on the other cases, prior to winning nobody has “standing” to contest on the “natural born” grounds - which is a pretty silly idea to my mind. Perhaps one of the other candidates in the election would have had “standing” ?

But as for the law - effectively the law is what its current interpretation is, not what we think it is or would like it to be. It seems to me that the wording in the Constitution can be interpreted in a broad sense, given that there is very little precedent. The meaning would be whatever the current case establishes, if it comes to that.

I think it would be very difficult to solidly establish original intent in this case as there is no real precedent.

And then there is the fact of changes in social structure via the law since then. Original intent could call for only the father being qualified to pass on citizenship for instance (”both parents” is an absurd requirement, even for “original intent”. That was never the custom.). These days it would be absurd to deny the mother the ability to pass on citizenship also.

I have no idea why he dormed with anyone. He went to school with Americans (in Hawaii) for almost his whole life. Possibly he thought hanging with the foreigners was cool ? There is a considerable desire among American students in UC Berkeley to be dormed at International House for instance.

My point about his 40 years here is that HE thinks he is American. The idea floating around about him having pre-existing allegiances to any other country (dating from the age of 7 ?) are absurd. This is a matter about the letter of the law, not such silly speculations. I don’t like him at all, and I wish he had stayed in Hawaii or Chicago, but lets be rational critics. I am afraid that he is an American leftist, not a foreign leftist.

The Constitution is not a bit clear about this - or a lot of other things. Sometimes original intent IS clear, when you have precedents from the period, but not here. If a case is brought before the Supreme Court they will clarify for the first time the meaning of “natural born”.

Well, the problem as far as we are concerned is in fact what the public thinks, in this and every other matter. We have no ability to create our reality. The law will be what the public thinks in this case.

It does not matter a hill of beans what Freepers think. We can gripe to each other all day for the next four years and it still won’t matter. Best is to come up with something the public will buy, not just Freepers.

Yeah, winning the HI legislature isn’t going to be happening anytime soon. The HI House has gone from 32D-19R in 2000 (under Dem Gov. Cayetano, its high water mark in the recent era) all the way down to 45D-6R with this election (essentially tying MA for a GOP non-entity). Even worse, the Senate now has just 2 Republicans, down from the 5 it had won since 2002 (it had lost 1 in ‘07), so it is even lower a percentage in the Senate than in the House (8% of the body).

Lingle has been unable to turn it around. The GOP hasn’t held the majority in either body since just prior to statehood in the ‘50s. At one point, the GOP had an even smaller presence than it does now and came very close to being the first state in the nation outside the South in the modern era to have no Republicans in a legislative body.

It’s remarkable Lingle can even govern under such circumstances, as the obscene Dem majorities could rule without her input and reduce her to figurehead status.

90
posted on 12/05/2008 4:23:35 PM PST
by fieldmarshaldj
(~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)

The Hawaii GOP is comatose under Lingle because she's the Hawaiian version of Arnold. Both got into office because the state RAT leadership had royally screwed the taxpayers and the Governor lied through his teeth to get a second term. Both ran under the tired old "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" banner. Both defeated the Lt. Governor who had been tied at the hip of the Governor everyone hated and symbolized corruption. Both ran energetic, spirited campaigns as the "reform" candidate and seemed like a total breathe of fresh air that had never been part of the state government. Both had prominent conservatives across the country that they were close to, who urged Republicans to unite behind them and their message of reducing waste and fixing government.

Today, neither has delivered on that promise, because both would rather be liked by Democrat politicians at state cocktail parties than force real change. Arnie tried a series of half-ass "reforms" that didn't have a prayer of passing, including some really off the wall stuff, and so did Lingle (perhaps the silliest proposal being her plan to ship all criminals across the pacific ocean to prisons on the mainland in order to deal with the prison overcrowding issue on Hawaii without having to build new prisons). The "Republican Main Street Partnership" -- the premier RINO breeding ground in the U.S. -- has only two Governors who are card carrying members. Guess who? Yep, Arnie and Linda. Not even that annoying Conn. RINO is a member.

The hopes that Arnie and Linda had of campaigning across the state with like-minded "moderates" who would get elected on their celebrity coattails didn't work, because voters choose the real Democrat when their choices were Dem and Dem lite. So in both Hawaii and California, the situation is Dems control the legislature by lopsided margins for the foreseeable future, and every statewide office except the Governorship. As usual, RINOs deliver for no one but the left.

There are some differnces of course -- Arnie is a numbskull and Lingle is a bright speaker, Arnie is a showman and Lingle is an actual politican -- and of course Arnie PLAYS a tough and "manly" act, where Lingle has Charlie Crist syndrome (constantly being the subject of whisper campaign in her own party that she's a closet homosexual), but what it all boils down to at the end of the day is they are both ineffective RINOs.

The sole bright spot Hawaii might have is the Lt. Governor, James Aiona, had a reputation as a very conservative law and order judge and won the Lt. Governor GOP primary without the support of Lingle's faction of the party, but was elected to the office in November on her coattails. As a pacific islander, the average Hawaiian can identify with him more, and perhaps he can do a better job selling the GOP brand than the RINO Lingle. If Lingle is not term limited and doesn't retire in 2010, Aiona needs to step up to the plate and get the Governor's office from her.

I’m afraid that was some of my worries with Lingle (and now trying to ascertain what her game is with the alleged birth certificate). BTW, Aiona wasn’t elected “on her coattails”, the Lt Governor is elected as a package deal. At least the nice thing is that the Governor gets to appoint the other statewide officeholders. Although not my favorite, I’d let her take a shot at running for the Senate in ‘10, she might even win (although Bill Quinn tried it when Hiram Fong stepped down in ‘76, which I wish he hadn’t, since he could’ve conceivably lasted into this decade as the Chinese-American version of Strom. However, Quinn had lost reelection as Governor in ‘62 and had been out of office 14 years, and in ‘10, she can run straight from the Governorship. I see HI now has term limits of 2, since I recall some of the Governors served 12-year stretches).

Of course, one difference between the former HI Lt Gov vs. California’s is that Mazie Hirono wasn’t that unpopular, and she managed a comeback to Congress. Bustamante became literally toxic, and the only reason we won the State Insurance Commissioner’s office is because that happened to be the office he decided to run for in ‘06. Had he been eligible to run for a 3rd term as Leo McCarthy did, there’s a pretty good chance McClintock might’ve been able to beat him outright. Too bad he couldn’t. But, our gain in Congress now. Maybe we can dump Boehner for Tom sometime in the next session.

94
posted on 12/06/2008 12:20:53 AM PST
by fieldmarshaldj
(~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)

Oh geesh.....that info has been aroun d a LONG time, not just from this stupid reporter. Are you new??

I'm not new...

And I'm not sure what we disagree about. The reporter threw in a stupid line indicating that people are accusing Obama of "maybe being born in Indonesia." This is simply not true. He may have Indonesian citizenship from being adopted by an Indonesian, but no one is saying that he was born there. This is intentionally bad reporting.

Aiona is already running it seems. Good news if he’s more conservative than Lingle.

Hopefully Hawaii won’t return to total union fiefdom status.

The first 2 rat governors did serve 12 years each.

“The “Republican Main Street Partnership” — the premier RINO breeding ground in the U.S. — has only two Governors who are card carrying members. Guess who? Yep, Arnie and Linda. Not even that annoying Conn. RINO is a member.”

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.